There is one unnoticed flaw or answer by the Laborals in this scenario of
figures below, and that is as happenned in the last Election ENSURING
(NOTICE OXLEY) a laboral victory.
And that is The labor and liberal parties SHARED preferences using the
deceiving slogan of Put One Nation Last.
The labour preferences put Liberal Cameron in. (Oxley) And I am sure the
reverse in another place.
The executives who make the deals, don.t give a dam about the "individual"
member, solong as they retain the balance, "You lead this time here, I'll
lead next time there."
"|Last point first. Only 57 labor and liberal party Members of Parliament
> can withstand a
> |10% swing against them as individuals. The remaining 84 labor and
> liberal Members of
> |Parliament would take a holiday on the dole queue if they each had a 10%
> swing against
> |them."
Philip Madsen.
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Jenkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: rtechow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Neither <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: Direct democracy proposal
> Well poured out, Ric!
>
> Yup, I think your maths are impeccable, and you are spot-on about the fear
> harboured by incumbents over even a small number of orchestrated
> preferences.
>
> I have seen your scheme put into operation once or twice. In 1990, the WA
> Democrats tried to use it as a response to a PHON-type preferences
> gang-bang by opponents, but were forced to back off under pressure from
> the (then) pro-Labor AD fed exec, which was in turn responding to ALP
> pressure. The ALP MPs were sweating with fear. It was aptly entitled 'the
> earthquake strategy' (so named by former AD senator Norm Sanders).
>
> A similar thing was done in the 1993 WA State election (where Kernot, Lees
> & Co had no ability to influence decisions) but with the specific
> objective of ousting the corrupt WA Inc Labor Government. It worked like a
> charm. That's why Kernot and Lees ambushed the WA Democrats, and why I
> quit in 1993. You'll find the whole story on my website at
> http://www.nettrek.com.au/~brian/wadem.htm
>
> When you go that way, you open up a fascinating can o' worms. You see how
> piss-weak the Laborials (and careerist Democrats) really are; you find
> treachery all around you; you find large sums of money and dozens of bogus
> members suddenly appearing to take over the ship. (Check out my footnote
> at http://www.nettrek.com.au/~brian/F.htm#Ref_14 ) You learn a lot about
> the connections between big politics, big money and not-so-big monopoly
> media. It's an experience none of us deserves to miss!
>
> Problem is, as you note, the result is still a House full of Laborials. (I
> prefer that term because it also acknowledges those there Gnash-ionals,
> too.) And a lot of blood on the floor, including that of yourself and
> friends unless you own an armoured personnel carrier. Even then, you've
> got to watch for the poignard secreted by the chauffeur.
>
> Hey, we'll talk about this some more, but did you catch the way Paddy
> McGuinness got stuck into the pseudo-republican bully boys in the SMH on
> 11 Nov? If not, you can find it at
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/9911/11/features/features2.html#top
> Let's go for more o' them referenda, eh? - preferably citizen-initiated!
>
> Regards
> Brian Jenkins
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.nettrek.com.au/~brian
>
> Ric wrote:
>
>
> |Thanks Brian,
> |
> |I'm glad my interests fit and I take your point about general
> disillusionment since
> |labor and liberal (I like to call them laberals) parties are so
> entrenched.
> |
> |But the next federal election is not so far away. I'd like to air my
> views and
> |hopefully persuade folks there is some merit in them.
> |
> |As I see it the Neither campaign has the following structural problems.
> |
> |1. It is pitched to individuals.
> |2. It is focussed on an issue that is not related to dinner on the table
> or other
> |things that get people upset and therefore is only ever going to be
> important to a few.
> |3. A 1-2-3-3-3 vote destroys most of the potential value of a vote (more
> later)
> |4. Ignores that whilst labor and liberal parties might be nearly
> omnipotent, their
> |individual candidates are very vulnerable in the House of Reps and that
> is the way to
> |hurt them.
> |
> |Last point first. Only 57 labor and liberal party Members of Parliament
> can withstand a
> |10% swing against them as individuals. The remaining 84 labor and
> liberal Members of
> |Parliament would take a holiday on the dole queue if they each had a 10%
> swing against
> |them.
> |
> |And it only takes 5% of electors to produce a 10% swing because a
> changing vote counts
> |twice. It is one vote less for the incumbent and one vote more for the
> opponent. That
> |is where a 1-2-3-3-3 vote loses power. It is only one vote less. It
> only counts once.
> |(Note there is a simplistic assumption that the 5% are all changing their
> voting
> |direction. In reality it is probably good.)
> |
> |Technically it is possible for 5% of the Australian Electors to kick out
> of office 84
> |labor and liberal MHRs (based on the last election results). That is a
> high degree of
> |vulnerability. It is a lot of leverage for 5% of the votes. It is a
> lot of power for
> |5% - forget the Senate. Sure they would be replaced with a new batch of
> 84 labor and
> |liberal MPs and the liberal/labor parties would still be supreme but the
> laberals would
> |be badly hurt and destabilished.
> |
> |This could be achieved by getting the electors to direct their vote
> AGAINST their
> |sitting labor/liberal member. If 5% do so then there will be 84
> labor/liberal ex-MPs
> |gnashing their teeth. Even 2% of the vote directed against the sitting
> member would
> |unseat 34 of the laberal bastards. In contrast, to have the same effect,
> you would
> |need to have 10-20% of the vote going 1-2-3-3-3 to minor parties.
> |
> |What are the chances of this happening? Bugger all. Because 5% of the
> vote is a lot
> |of people to convince without a lot of money. And the issue is not
> dinner related.
> |Electoral systems will never be a populist issue.
> |
> |But the point is that there is no need to directly convince 5% of the
> people to vote a
> |particular way. At the last election the 22% of the national primary
> vote went to
> |minor parties. If minor parties could be persuaded to direct their
> preferences in an
> |appropriate way then potentially up to 22% of the vote could go to
> unseating incumbent
> |labor and liberal MPs.
> |
> |As a for instance take One Nation. You may not like One Nation's ideas
> but the liberal
> |and labor parties declared war on One Nation so it possibly does not feel
> kindly
> |disposed to either of them. Perhaps One Nation could be persuaded to
> direct the
> |preferences of its votes against the sitting labor/liberal member in
> order to
> |deliberately unseat them and damage it's enemies.
> |
> |What would happen? Well One Nation retains about 4-5% of the vote so
> there would be a
> |serious threat. Newspapers would rail about it and generate a lot of
> publicity on
> |electoral systems. Labor and Liberal parties would be scared. A lot of
> ordinary
> |Australians would enjoy that and perhaps be motivated to kick the
> laberals in the balls
> |just for the fun of having a bit of revenge.
> |
> |Now if other minor parties could be persuaded to join in the labor and
> liberal parties
> |would be up shit creek. Each minor parties vote would reinforce each
> others against the
> |labor and liberal parties. The threat of it would improve their
> negotiating position.
> |
> |I think we would find the electoral system changed very quickly.
> Probably to
> |multi-member electorates which would be less vulnerable to the strategy.
> |
> |The key to electoral change is make the current arrangement hurt the
> liberal and labor
> |parties. Once electoral change is on their agenda it becomes possible.
> |
> |The key to that is to lobby and to find reasons to persuade minor parties
> not to be part
> |of the vote catchment area for labor and liberal by doing preference
> deals. There
> |wouldn't seem to be a great deal of value in that for minor parties
> anyway. It just
> |seems to be a convention that it is done.
> |
> |OK so this might not be easy. But I'd say it is a lot more likely then
> for a small
> |group to persuade enough individual Australian Electors to make a
> difference without
> |fistfulls of money.
> |
> |I would like peoples thoughts on how this strategy might be achieved. A
> point is that
> |the strategy applies to any single member electoral system so there is no
> need to limit
> |the scope to Australia.
> |
> |Cheers everybody,
> |
> |Ric
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |Brian Jenkins wrote:
> |
> |> Welcome, Ric.
> |>
> |> Yes, your interests fit the original direction of the Neither list.
> |> However, any public list can only reflect the views and disciplines of
> |> those who contribute to it - and, as you imply, there's very little of
> |> interest in Neither at present.
> |>
> |> OK, so there's a general disillusion about politics and electoral
> |> matters. Esoteric spoutings of discontent are filling the vacuum. But,
> |> don't despair - Rome wasn't built in a day!
> |>
> |> Regards
> |> Brian Jenkins
> |>
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: rtechow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> |> To: Brian Jenkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> |> Cc: Neither <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> |> Date: Monday, 22 November 1999 22:37
> |> Subject: Re: Direct democracy proposal
> |>
> |> |Hi everyone,
> |> |
> |> |I've just joined this email list. I've seen some of the emails from
> |> the start of
> |> |langer's Neither campaign and seen some the past two weeks.
> |> |
> |> |Would somebody be kind enough to re-state Neither's objectives and
> |> stratgegies for
> |> |acheiving those objectives?
> |> |
> |> |Truth is I haven't seen much direction in recent emails.
> |> |
> |> |My objectives are that I want to screw the guts out of the labor and
> |> liberal parties by
> |> |breaking the electoral system we've got whereby
> |> |
> |> |1. Electors have to vote
> |> |2. Electors have to vote liberal or labor as they must, at a minimum,
> |> give a second last
> |> |preference to either a liberal or labor candidate.
> |> |
> |> |Does that fit?
> |> |
> |> |Cheers
> |> |
> |> |Ric Techow
> |>
> |> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> |> This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general
> discussion.
> |>
> |> To unsubscribe click here
> Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe
> |> To subscribe click here
> Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe
> |>
> |> For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |> http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
> |> For archives
> |> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
> |
>
>
>
